20 Pragmatic Websites Taking The Internet By Storm
From Shiapedia
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 사이트 [websites] and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, 무료 프라그마틱 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
